The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1887-06-04
1OLFAX, GRANT PARISH, La, SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1887

suance of this line of policy, the
communication of the school board
appears in our columns this morn
ing exactly as it was written, with
out word or sentence omitted.
The members of the school board
assume full responsibility for the
Rutland contract. They say it is
a good thing, and that they stand
by it Now, let us see. If the
school board means that seeing
that they could not get the State
officials to attend to this matter,
and believing that the school fund
would get nothing unless they en-
ployed Rutland, that, therefore,
the contract is thoroughly defensi-
BILE, WE AGREE WITH THEM. We do
not believe that the school fund of
this parish would have received a
dollar of back interest to this date
unless the Rutland contract had
been made. But, if the school board
of this parish means to say that it
was NOT the duty of the State SUI
perintendent Of education to attend
to just such matters as this, then
we most heartily and thoroughly
dissent from such view. We ask
the attention of our readers to
article 707 of the Revised Statutes
defining the duties of the State SUI
perintendent Of education. This
article reads as follows:
The superintendent Of public education
shall be charged with the general SUPER
vision of all parish boards of education,
and all common, high and normal schools
of the State, and he shall see that the
school system as early as practicable is
carried into effect. With a general view
of the special duties, he shall visit each
parish of the State whenever practicable
at least once year, and shall give due
notice of the time of his intended visit to
secretary of the parish board of directors,
whose duty it shall be to summon meet
| ing of the parish board to meet and con-
| fer with the State superintendent ON all
matters connected with the interest of the
public schools of the parish (Acts of
1877, p. ~
Can the members of the school
board of this or any other parish
say, after reading the above, that it
was not the duty of the State SUI
perintendent of education to attend
to this work? For what do the peo-
pie of this State elect superin-
tendent of education and pay him
salary and travelling expenses un-
less it be to visit the various par
ishes and get just such data as was
needed in this case? Could Mr..
Rutland do work in connection
with the public school interest that
Mr.. Easton could not? If this be
true, Mr.. Rutland should be our
superintendent, and Mr.. Easton
should be relieved. By no logic
that we can discover, can the blame
for this transaction be taken from
the shoulders of the State super
intendent. The task imposed may
have been difficult and laborious;"
do we elect our State officers to un-
dertake only those tasks which are
not difficult and laboriousY The
true explanation of this "grab' is
that Mr.. Rutland had sufficient in
dustry to undertake the difficult
and laborious" task; Mr.. Easton had
not. The school fund has paid an
attorney so per cent of it's back in
terest fund because the State SUI
perintendent was lazy. This is the
matter in a nutshell
In our opinion the parish school
board did wise thing in making
this contract. The way things are
run now, if continued, holds out no
hope whatever of getting the State
officials to fulfill their duties in
this matter, and the school board
is probably getting so per cent,
while to wait upon the officials
whose province it is to attend to
these things might have resulted
in the school fund getting nothing
for years to come. However, on
reflection, it might have been wiser
to wait and have the people s'turn
| off, the INDECENT superintendent
and see what a new cast of affairs
might bring.
The Times has not published any
of the elaborate" explanations of
this matter simply because they
were too elaborate to be UNDER
stood. Not one of them touches up
ON the issue involved: Why did